Actually, no, they would never do that. No venue could bring these people together.

And yet, each of these people has stood before the IamA subcommunity on the social network Reddit, and typed those immortal letters, "AMA."

Ask. Me. Anything.

The genius of the AMA: it imports the aspirational norms of honesty and authenticity from pseudonymous Internet forums into a public venue with 2.5 million subscribers.

In fact, hundreds of people have offered themselves up to be interrogated via Reddit's crowdsourced question-and-answer sessions. They open a new thread on the social network and say, for example, "IamA nanny for a super-rich family in China AMA!"

Then, the assembled Redditors ask whatever they want. Questions are voted up and down, and generally speaking, the most popular ones get answered. These interviews can last for as little as an hour or go on for several days.

Politicians tend to play things pretty straight, but the regular people and niche celebrities tend to open up in fascinating ways.

Over the last several years, the IamA subreddit has gone from interesting curiosity to a juggernaut of a media brand. Its syntax and abbreviations have invaded the public consciousness like Wired's aged Wired/Tired/Expired rubric. It's a common Twitter joke now to say, "I [did something commonplace], ask me anything."

There's a reason for that. AMAs generate some of the most compelling stories on the web, or in any medium. There's a whole cottage content industry that merely repackages the answers from AMAs.

Something about the site—the venue, the community, something—licenses people to say and do things that they otherwise wouldn't.

Erik Martin, Reddit's general manager, likes to say of the AMAs that "there are no rules." But that is, itself, a way of trying to release people from behaving as they normally would. The space is, at least by declaration, a social-convention-free zone, and many of the question-answerers try to follow along, albeit less comfortably than the pseudonymous or anonymous.

In a world where every man on the street is so goddamn media savvy, each interview feels transgressive. The electricity is generated, I would contend, from the strange, murky recesses of the Internet where AMAs began.

The genius of the AMA: It imports the aspirational norms of honesty and authenticity from pseudonymous Internet forums into a public venue with 2.5 million subscribers.

The AMA as Genuinely New Media

Perhaps the most fascinating part of the popularity of the AMA is that it did not really exist before the modern (post-2000) Internet. Most social media forms find their roots in stuff people have long been doing. Word-of-mouth information sharing was the rule long before the industrialization of news production in the 19th and 20th centuries. Journalist Tom Standage dedicated an entire book to this premise, Writing on The Wall: Social Media—The First 2,000 Years.

But there aren't clear corollaries for the AMA in previous media or social culture. This is a new media form for our PR-managed, ultra-spun times.

"Real-time Q&A [was] rather difficult before telegraph/radio/internet," Standage told me on Twitter. Though there were Q&A communities like Théophraste Renaudot's in 17th-century Paris, they didn't have the structure of one person standing before an audience and answering questions.

Print and broadcast media never hit on the AMA format either. Sure, there were gameshows like I've Got A Secret, which invited on people with wacky stories, or What's My Line?But these shows were fundamentally about the TV celebrities guessing and not about the people who were invited onto the show.

Radio call-in shows mirror some aspects of the AMA, but WNYC is not in the habit of inviting cooks at Applebee's on the show to pseudonymously answer questions about their line of work.

Magazines and small-town newspapers most certainly contain stories with characters like the people who show up in AMAs. But these profiles are fundamentally about the narrative, and the thicker the layer of writerly mediation, the more celebrated the writing. It may be, as a friend of mine put it, that "magazines are about connecting people to other people," but being the conduit is the way journalists and writers make their names.

In the AMA, there is no journalist, no writer, no personal brand. No one makes a living asking questions of AMA participants. There's nothing to lose.

There is Reddit, writ-large, and the moderators, but the form of mediation is communal, quantitative, and amateur, not subjective and professional.

The Genealogy of the AMA

So how did we get to this point in the medium? What is the genealogy of the AMA?

Here's how I would lay it out, knowing that the evolution of something like this will always be more complex than the stories we tell about it.

That same year, two sites launched with very different audiences: UrbanBaby, a New Yorky mothers' venue, and SomethingAwful, a humor publication with a young, male audience. Both hosted forums that welcomed all kinds of confessional postings. They were raucous and funny and anonymous enough. The anonymity, in the immortal words of Emily Nussbaum in her feature on UrbanBaby, "acts like a combination of a truth serum and a very strong cocktail."

And scholar Sarita Schoenebeck found commonalities between the mothers on YouBeMom and young men on forums like SomethingAwful: "One hypothesis is that it offers a social outlet for violating norms and expectations that moms face in other parts of their lives—in other words, they do it for the 'lulz'."

Users of MetaFilter might remember similar types of behavior, but the site's founder, Matt Haughey, told me the site never tried to organize it. "We didn't really have anything formal," he said, "just that sometimes a famous person appeared in a thread and would answer followups."

Current teens might think of Tumblr's Ask Me function or Ask.fm, which serves a similar purpose.

And indeed, as tech journalist Clive Thompson put it to me, "I suspect [the behavior] emerges any place people of relatively disparate backgrounds converse with each other."

Which is to say: the ask-me-anything confessional mode has very broad appeal, even outside Reddit's core young, male user base.

But it was on Something Awful's Ask/Tell forums that the immediate precursor to Reddit's AMA coalesced. The forum was inaugurated in June 2005, but the behavior goes further back.

There, the format had popped from the chrysalis and is sitting on the branch drying its wings. The audience was limited—most posts got a couple thousand views and at most a few dozen replies. And the interviewees were less celebrated (and interesting, generally speaking). There were lots of pizza delivery guys and fast-food workers with stories to tell.

And yet, people were groping toward a potent kind of profile. Check out these options from just the first six months of the forums:

The last in that list, from December 2005, is like the AMAs we have come to know and love. The answerer has a weird job that people assume has fascinating and creepy details that people don't talk about. And it's true! Did you know the ashes in urns are not ashes at all but pulverized bones?

"The remains in the bucket are not 'ashes'. They are dried out pieces of bone, sometimes the odd staple from various surgeries, an occasional steel knee joint, etc. etc.," Frank Fencepost writes. "These remains are then pulverized (after being scanned with a big handheld magnet to remove any metal) into a powder which mourners refer to as 'ashes', but which really are just pulverized bone."

Jesus.

By late 2006, a SomethingAwful user could summarize the situation like this:

At times it turns into an "I'm smarter than you" circle jerk worse than D&D due to its inability or poor attempts to reference any of its claims to facts. Anecdotes are common and encouraged, though they can cloud the useful information hidden inside. There are the rare occasions when a real "expert" in a subject opens an Ask thread that can be extremely useful and enlightening.

One of the most entertaining and insightful forums on SA.

And, by number of posts anyway, that was the year that the Ask/Tell forum peaked. Back then, there were 580 pages of posts. By 2013, there were only 13, though they were much more heavily trafficked, on average, with some threads drawing six-digit views.

One reason for the decline might be that a small but growing site called Reddit was about to become the preeminent place for "real 'expert'" AMAs that were extremely useful and enlightening.

Reddit's Special Sauce

Take these sites — Slashdot, UrbanBaby, SomethingAwful, AOL chat rooms — and the old radio call-in shows and maybe even reality TV and you get the Reddit AMA.

All these specific ideas — taboo topics, anonymity, niche tech celebrity, crowdsourced questions, moderation — have come together to make these interviews what they are.

The AMA on Reddit was slow to develop. Rob Walker glossed much of the history in a post last year. The first involved Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian and later Reddit GM Erik Martin doing video or on-stage interviews with questions from their community.

In the waning years of the last decade, Reddit went after politicians and niche celebrities, many of whom had no idea what Reddit was. "There were some days when I was sending out 20 emails and getting one response," Reddit's Martin said. "We'd call up press secretaries on the hill and most of them would say, 'I have no idea what you're talking about, fuck off.'"

The big interviewees back then, Ohanian said would be someone like Adam Savage of Mythbusters. That kind of interview would appear on the Reddit blog and spark interest in the more general Q&A format.

By May of 2009, the AMA crowd had gotten large enough that a new subreddit dedicated purely to the form was created, /IamA.

A key innovation in the Reddit-style AMA is that they require proof that an interviewee is who he or she says they are. That solved a problem that cropped up on the SomethingAwful Ask/Tell forum: on many topics, one would be more than happy to hear from a real expert (say an ER doc) and horribly pissed to hear from a fake expert (say someone who has watched E.R.).

By late 2010, when Stephen Colbert did an AMA, the celebrities and politicians were coming to them. Now, the Reddit AMA is as regular a promotional stop as a turn on morning TV or an hour on Fresh Air.

Of course, the biggest moment for Reddit was when President Obama stopped by during his re-election campaign, a moment that crashed the company's servers.

"Do you get to bathe in the warm glow of charisma, fame, and power? Sure. Did President Obama give a single answer that he wouldn't to a standard media outlet? I don't think so," I wrote. "In the 10 answers Obama gave, there was not a single one that'd be interesting to Redditors if it had appeared somewhere else."

AMAs could be fun or profound, but they were a terrible way of wringing the truth from the powerful.

But I've come to reconsider this critique.

Mostly because at least in the AMA, there is a good-faithexpectation of candor. In most media interviews these days, literally no one expects a CEO or politician to be straight with the interviewer. It is, in fact, a sign of savvy and skill to know how to not answer questions. They actively train on how to not tell the media anything we actually want to know.

With an AMA, there is nothing but the culture to shape the responses that people give. But isn't that true of press conferences and other sorts of interviews?

And the very point of AMAs is to get into someone's head or go behind closed doors, to see the backstage.

AMAs among common folk focus on dishing on what sex, disease, or jobs are really like. The celebrity versions borrow the same idea, but they serve up inside information on celebrity itself (generally speaking) or politics itself.

The AMA is supposed to expose the mechanism. The AMA is about exposing the "inside conversations." The AMA is like the crowdsourced version of those moments when Kevin Spacey turns to the camera in House of Cards and breaks things down.

And I think most politicians and celebrities would very much like to be Kevin Spacey in those moments. Which is powerful.

An Honest Question Gets an Honest Answer

Back to the two-penised guy.

You'd expect that particular Q&A to devolve into the worst kind of terribleness. I mean, it's a guy with two penises answering questions on the Internet! What could go wrong? Everything, that's what.

And yet, as if to prove that the point of the AMA is that human empathy exists, the interview was fascinating and humane, mind-expanding, and homophobia deflating (he's bisexual). It was just remarkable all around.

"In every good AMA, there's always one of those good moments that's a conversation between two people that gets spread to a wider audience," Reddit's Erik Martin told me. "I've seen similar events on Twitter/Facebook, but those moments get lost and don't get seen by as many people or don't have that person-to-person feel."

And it's that feeling of connection, down there in the stewed mess of sexual perversion, pseudonymity, lulz, doges, cats, and weirdness, that has always made the Internet feel most alive. There's a person on the other end of the line, and they are a human like me.

That it is messy and strange, hard for outsiders to decipher, and possibly taboo: Those are the ante to find genuine feeling on an Internet filled with social media gurus and SEO ninjas.

Q: Medical professional here with some questions. Have you had urological studies done to see how your urethra drains into both penises and if you have any other duplication of internal organs(like your prostate)? Did they offer any sort of explanation as to the embryological cause of it?

A: had one issue in my teens. the Y intersection where my urethra splits into two had some tension issues and was ballooning until the pressure was enough to force the urine up and out. So they did some minor surgery and used catheters to stretch and open up the Y some. no problems since. one prostate, but it's bigger than average and it produces more seminal fluid than most, so at least once a week or so it has to be squeezed when i orgasm to release all the fluid. as for the how? i don't know all the details, they told my mom that it could have been a lot worse and that i was rarer than boys who were on record. my mom refused a lot of tests and studies. she didn't want me feeling like a freak growing up and told me i was special since i had two and everyone else had one. ;)

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Most of the big names in futurism are men. What does that mean for the direction we’re all headed?

In the future, everyone’s going to have a robot assistant. That’s the story, at least. And as part of that long-running narrative, Facebook just launched its virtual assistant. They’re calling it Moneypenny—the secretary from the James Bond Films. Which means the symbol of our march forward, once again, ends up being a nod back. In this case, Moneypenny is a send-up to an age when Bond’s womanizing was a symbol of manliness and many women were, no matter what they wanted to be doing, secretaries.

Why can’t people imagine a future without falling into the sexist past? Why does the road ahead keep leading us back to a place that looks like the Tomorrowland of the 1950s? Well, when it comes to Moneypenny, here’s a relevant datapoint: More than two thirds of Facebook employees are men. That’s a ratio reflected among another key group: futurists.

Two hundred fifty years of slavery. Ninety years of Jim Crow. Sixty years of separate but equal. Thirty-five years of racist housing policy. Until we reckon with our compounding moral debts, America will never be whole.

And if thy brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing today.

— Deuteronomy 15: 12–15

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

Even when they’re adopted, the children of the wealthy grow up to be just as well-off as their parents.

Lately, it seems that every new study about social mobility further corrodes the story Americans tell themselves about meritocracy; each one provides more evidence that comfortable lives are reserved for the winners of what sociologists call the birth lottery. But, recently, there have been suggestions that the birth lottery’s outcomes can be manipulated even after the fluttering ping-pong balls of inequality have been drawn.

What appears to matter—a lot—is environment, and that’s something that can be controlled. For example, one study out of Harvard found that moving poor families into better neighborhoods greatly increased the chances that children would escape poverty when they grew up.

While it’s well documentedthat the children of the wealthy tend to grow up to be wealthy, researchers are still at work on how and why that happens. Perhaps they grow up to be rich because they genetically inherit certain skills and preferences, such as a tendency to tuck away money into savings. Or perhaps it’s mostly because wealthier parents invest more in their children’s education and help them get well-paid jobs. Is it more nature, or more nurture?

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.